Aristotle attributed to Plato the notion that the Forms are not the most basic entities, but are in some way derived from something else. This notion, however, cannot be found in any of Plato's works. And yet, Aristotle ascribed this view to Plato.
2006-12-21 14:17:54 · 9 answers · asked by WHY?? 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Those guys drank a lot of wine !
2006-12-21 14:19:53 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well, there are many possible explanations. Perhaps, Plato had expressed this notion to Aristotle, but didn't write it down. Perhaps, some of his works haven't been found yet or they have been destroyed forever or perhaps Aristotle misinterpreted Plato....
2006-12-21 14:25:18 · answer #2 · answered by Alexander K 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Plato was Aristotle teacher or mentor master,therefore that could be the reason he attributed that notion as Plato's
2006-12-21 18:41:08 · answer #3 · answered by Byzantino 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Most of Plato's works were destroyed by Christians and Muslims who burned the Library of Alexandria down. Most of Socrates' works were rescued by the Muslim leader who ordered the library burned the second time. Plato and Aristotle really only applied what Socrates taught them. Read Socrates and then jump to Euclid and his geometries and then kinda skip the whole quagmire of Christian Dark Ages to Leibniz's theory of "monads." Today, we call monads, "photons."
2006-12-21 14:30:41 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it is hinted at in Euthyphro. Socrates and Euthyphro end in a stalemate, but not before they discuss the possibility that the god's esteem something because it is good in itself. This points to something beyond divinity, possibly the forms - but I think the gods are "the forms" of humans (could be wrong with this interpretation). If memory serves, Phaedrus seems to back up this interpretation.
Anyway - if the gods are the form for humans and if the god's esteem something beyond divinity then there is something beyond the forms.
Phaedo probably has more answers one way or the other, but I've not read it.
2006-12-21 14:46:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The qualification that needs to be added to your question is the word "existing" after "Plato's".
We have only fragments of the Ancient World's works--who can say how many thoughts are now dust?
An imperfect vison...now that rings a bell, doesn't it?
2006-12-21 14:28:05 · answer #6 · answered by Palmerpath 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
ok u need more details to the q? but if you mean we are not the most basic and came frome something else is that something Godly or something scientific of course we are from something if its more Godly but scientificc how i'm not sure i get it
2006-12-21 14:27:54 · answer #7 · answered by marion r 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A philosophy class.
2006-12-21 14:36:46 · answer #8 · answered by jcwiechert 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you could almost relate that way of thinking and compare it to the founding fathers of this country and george bush.
2006-12-21 14:30:39 · answer #9 · answered by chris l 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋